final-bundle-quality

name	final-bundle-quality
description	Evaluate and replay final_bundle PDF/LaTeX quality for Research Harness project-level self-evolution. Trigger on phrases like "final bundle quality", "PDF quality replay", "LaTeX quality gate", "AAAI PDF QA", "final_bundle_quality", or equivalent requests to scan publication bundles, classify layout/encoding/recompile defects, and decide whether a skill can be promoted.
category	research
version	0.1.2
public_suite	benchmark
task_type	evaluation
data_access_level	local-files
inputs	topic_id, final_bundle artifact, TeX/PDF/log paths, target profile
outputs	final_bundle_quality_report, replay trajectory, promotion decision
gates	zero blocking and zero recompile-repairable issues before promotion claims
artifact_schemas	final_bundle_quality_report, runtime_trace_grade
estimated_runtime	5-30 min

Final Bundle Quality

Use this skill when a Research Harness topic has a final_bundle artifact and the goal is to verify PDF/LaTeX quality, compare quality trajectory, or evaluate whether a project-level repair policy can be promoted.

Inputs

• Source topic id and active final_bundle artifact id.
• Target profile, for example AAAI-style-science-discovery.
• TeX, PDF, log, and optional bibliography paths from the artifact payload.
• Lifecycle pack and trajectory gate artifacts when evaluating promotion.
• Held-out final_bundle artifacts from another topic.

Workflow

1. Scan the source bundle with scan_pdf_quality_bundle.
2. Classify issues into blocking, recompile-repairable, layout-only, and encoding groups.
3. Build or load a path-safe pdf_quality_replay_trajectory; do not infer historical quality by rescanning shared mutable paths.
4. Run the trajectory gate before any held-out replay decision.
5. Collect held-out replay signals from active non-source final_bundle artifacts.
6. Evaluate lifecycle promotion with evaluate_skill_lifecycle_pack.
7. If a multi_route_review_report exists, parse it as strong readiness guidance before reporting significant PDF quality improvement.
8. If the blocker is figure readability, placeholder diagrams, or weak visual evidence, trigger figure-quality before reporting publication-readiness improvement.
9. Record gate, discovery, and management artifacts before changing global skill behavior.

Promotion Rules

• Source trajectory must pass final PDF quality thresholds.
• Source bundle and held-out bundle must have zero blocking and zero recompile-repairable issues.
• Layout-only warnings must include line ranges, source excerpts, or accepted thresholds.
• Real held-out replay must pass page, citation, anonymization, and bibliography gates.
• Controlled or synthetic backfills can exercise replay plumbing but must not count as promotion evidence.
• Exact target-profile replay is preferred. Compatible target profiles are allowed only when explicitly supplied through compatible_target_profiles, and the artifact metadata must preserve target_profile_match=compatible.
• Promotion metadata must distinguish promotion_strength=exact_profile_held_out from promotion_strength=compatible_profile_held_out; do not report compatible-profile evidence as exact-profile validation.
• A clean deterministic PDF scan does not override a multi-route consensus reject; reviewer consensus blocks publication-readiness handoff until project-level review gates record and address the blockers.
• Novelty, scope, and evidence objections from multi-route review are submission-readiness blockers only; this skill must not mutate topic-level research strategy or topic self-evolution policy.
• Figure/table quality objections should route to figure-quality; deterministic PDF cleanliness does not make placeholder figures publication-ready.

Current Evidence

• Current strongest promotion evidence is exact-profile held-out replay: project_artifacts:771, topic 5 ResearchFlowBench recompiled through the RH AAAI-style compiler path.
• Current lifecycle gate: project_artifacts:772, action promote, promotion_strength=exact_profile_held_out, target_profile_match=exact.
• Current strongest reviewer-readiness evidence is project_artifacts:778: all completed host-agent routes rejected layout-v8, with minimum scores aaai_readiness=2, evidence=2, visuals=3, format=2.
• Earlier compatible-profile replay remains useful historical evidence: project_artifacts:757, target_profile_match=compatible, promotion_strength=compatible_profile_held_out.
• Controlled replay project_artifacts:752 remains plumbing-only evidence and must not count as promotion evidence.

Memory Policy

• Transferable memory: issue category, severity, target profile, gate outcome, and repair policy.
• Topic-local memory: topic id, artifact id, file paths, source paths, and one-off bundle layout details.
• Do not hard-code topic 8 paths, artifact ids, filenames, or AAAI-specific thresholds into project-level behavior.

Known Lessons

• Tab-prefixed malformed LaTeX commands and invalid UTF-8 are recompile-repairable defects.
• Underfull hbox warnings are layout-only diagnostics and should not trigger infinite repair loops.
• Overfull hbox warnings require line-level diagnostics and should not mask citation or venue gates.
• A clean source topic is insufficient for project-level promotion without held-out replay.
• A compatible-profile held-out replay can promote this skill only when explicitly declared and recorded.
• When recompiling single-column source material into AAAI-style two-column drafts, infer tabularx/array dependencies and promote tabularx{\textwidth} tables to table* floats to avoid high-severity overfull boxes.
• Multi-route review consensus can be stricter than deterministic PDF scanning: official venue style, evidence-bearing tables/visuals, reproducibility artifacts, and reviewer score minima should guide project-level gates before any human handoff claim.